Personally, I'd say if you're not absolutely stuck on a Civic, take a look at a
third-gen (86-89) Accord... I'm on my third now, and I love them. Definitely
look for one with fuel injection, as this generation was when they made the
changeover, so a lot of them still have carbs (not that there's anything wrong
with the carbed versions per se, they work great, but they are pretty complex,
with about five gazillion vacuum hoses). If you find one in good shape, it'll
serve you well - there's one guy from Winnipeg on 3geez.com whose family has an
'87 sedan with well over a million km on it.


Elle wrote:
> As the regulars here know, I have got a kick out of working
> on my 1991 Civic over the years. But (1) it has rust around
> the gills and I want to look sportier (I surrender to
> vanity); (2) I think for the next several years I will
> always fear that it has a major engine breakdown yada and I
> will have to find another car fast and at some loss of
> money; and (3) I have the time to maintain two Hondas.
>
> I have said I'd lean towards new (my last two cars were
> brand new) but now knowing more about maintaining cars, I'm
> leaning towards the price-savings of buying used. I see a
> 1999 2-door, 5-speed Civic with 90k miles for sale in my
> area. The owner says it runs great. Photo looks good. Price
> is consistent with Edmunds (it's also "or best offer"), so
> far, though I'm betting it needs a new timing belt (no
> problem, Elle says, knock on wood). Of course I would
> inspect it. Questions for the group:
>
> How will maintaining this car compare to maintaining my 91
> Civic, generally speaking? I have looked at the parts
> drawings of the 99, and it looks awfully similar.
>
> What's the best way to get a carfax or whatever report
> indicating whether the car has been in an accident?
>
> Any other caveats? Tegger, I bear in mind your recent
> caution about how even cars this new are usually just a
> whole other ball game. Can you (with others) take a look at
> this one and opine on how much, ya know, overlap between
> maintaining it and my older, 91 Honda will be, technique
> wise?
>
> My used car guide is that at
> http://home.earthlink.net/~honda.lioness/id18.html

 

Personally, I'd say if you're not absolutely stuck on a Civic, take a look at a
third-gen (86-89) Accord... I'm on my third now, and I love them. Definitely
look for one with fuel injection, as this generation was when they made the
changeover, so a lot of them still have carbs (not that there's anything wrong
with the carbed versions per se, they work great, but they are pretty complex,
with about five gazillion vacuum hoses). If you find one in good shape, it'll
serve you well - there's one guy from Winnipeg on 3geez.com whose family has an
'87 sedan with well over a million km on it.


Elle wrote:
> As the regulars here know, I have got a kick out of working
> on my 1991 Civic over the years. But (1) it has rust around
> the gills and I want to look sportier (I surrender to
> vanity); (2) I think for the next several years I will
> always fear that it has a major engine breakdown yada and I
> will have to find another car fast and at some loss of
> money; and (3) I have the time to maintain two Hondas.
>
> I have said I'd lean towards new (my last two cars were
> brand new) but now knowing more about maintaining cars, I'm
> leaning towards the price-savings of buying used. I see a
> 1999 2-door, 5-speed Civic with 90k miles for sale in my
> area. The owner says it runs great. Photo looks good. Price
> is consistent with Edmunds (it's also "or best offer"), so
> far, though I'm betting it needs a new timing belt (no
> problem, Elle says, knock on wood). Of course I would
> inspect it. Questions for the group:
>
> How will maintaining this car compare to maintaining my 91
> Civic, generally speaking? I have looked at the parts
> drawings of the 99, and it looks awfully similar.
>
> What's the best way to get a carfax or whatever report
> indicating whether the car has been in an accident?
>
> Any other caveats? Tegger, I bear in mind your recent
> caution about how even cars this new are usually just a
> whole other ball game. Can you (with others) take a look at
> this one and opine on how much, ya know, overlap between
> maintaining it and my older, 91 Honda will be, technique
> wise?
>
> My used car guide is that at
> http://home.earthlink.net/~honda.lioness/id18.html

 

Personally, I'd say if you're not absolutely stuck on a Civic, take a look at a
third-gen (86-89) Accord... I'm on my third now, and I love them. Definitely
look for one with fuel injection, as this generation was when they made the
changeover, so a lot of them still have carbs (not that there's anything wrong
with the carbed versions per se, they work great, but they are pretty complex,
with about five gazillion vacuum hoses). If you find one in good shape, it'll
serve you well - there's one guy from Winnipeg on 3geez.com whose family has an
'87 sedan with well over a million km on it.


Elle wrote:
> As the regulars here know, I have got a kick out of working
> on my 1991 Civic over the years. But (1) it has rust around
> the gills and I want to look sportier (I surrender to
> vanity); (2) I think for the next several years I will
> always fear that it has a major engine breakdown yada and I
> will have to find another car fast and at some loss of
> money; and (3) I have the time to maintain two Hondas.
>
> I have said I'd lean towards new (my last two cars were
> brand new) but now knowing more about maintaining cars, I'm
> leaning towards the price-savings of buying used. I see a
> 1999 2-door, 5-speed Civic with 90k miles for sale in my
> area. The owner says it runs great. Photo looks good. Price
> is consistent with Edmunds (it's also "or best offer"), so
> far, though I'm betting it needs a new timing belt (no
> problem, Elle says, knock on wood). Of course I would
> inspect it. Questions for the group:
>
> How will maintaining this car compare to maintaining my 91
> Civic, generally speaking? I have looked at the parts
> drawings of the 99, and it looks awfully similar.
>
> What's the best way to get a carfax or whatever report
> indicating whether the car has been in an accident?
>
> Any other caveats? Tegger, I bear in mind your recent
> caution about how even cars this new are usually just a
> whole other ball game. Can you (with others) take a look at
> this one and opine on how much, ya know, overlap between
> maintaining it and my older, 91 Honda will be, technique
> wise?
>
> My used car guide is that at
> http://home.earthlink.net/~honda.lioness/id18.html

 

I'm pretty much absolutely stuck on a Civic (or Civic CRX),
'cause of the smaller displacement engines and so better
fuel mileage. OTOH, if I see and can obtain a bargain price
on an 87-89 Accord, then I realize this might offset the
higher cost of fuel. I do like the look of Accords of that
era.

Thank you for the input.

"Matt Ion" <soundy106@gmail.com> wrote
> Personally, I'd say if you're not absolutely stuck on a
> Civic, take a look at a third-gen (86-89) Accord... I'm on
> my third now, and I love them. Definitely look for one
> with fuel injection, as this generation was when they made
> the changeover, so a lot of them still have carbs (not
> that there's anything wrong with the carbed versions per
> se, they work great, but they are pretty complex, with
> about five gazillion vacuum hoses). If you find one in
> good shape, it'll serve you well - there's one guy from
> Winnipeg on 3geez.com whose family has an '87 sedan with
> well over a million km on it.

 

I'm pretty much absolutely stuck on a Civic (or Civic CRX),
'cause of the smaller displacement engines and so better
fuel mileage. OTOH, if I see and can obtain a bargain price
on an 87-89 Accord, then I realize this might offset the
higher cost of fuel. I do like the look of Accords of that
era.

Thank you for the input.

"Matt Ion" <soundy106@gmail.com> wrote
> Personally, I'd say if you're not absolutely stuck on a
> Civic, take a look at a third-gen (86-89) Accord... I'm on
> my third now, and I love them. Definitely look for one
> with fuel injection, as this generation was when they made
> the changeover, so a lot of them still have carbs (not
> that there's anything wrong with the carbed versions per
> se, they work great, but they are pretty complex, with
> about five gazillion vacuum hoses). If you find one in
> good shape, it'll serve you well - there's one guy from
> Winnipeg on 3geez.com whose family has an '87 sedan with
> well over a million km on it.

 

I'm pretty much absolutely stuck on a Civic (or Civic CRX),
'cause of the smaller displacement engines and so better
fuel mileage. OTOH, if I see and can obtain a bargain price
on an 87-89 Accord, then I realize this might offset the
higher cost of fuel. I do like the look of Accords of that
era.

Thank you for the input.

"Matt Ion" <soundy106@gmail.com> wrote
> Personally, I'd say if you're not absolutely stuck on a
> Civic, take a look at a third-gen (86-89) Accord... I'm on
> my third now, and I love them. Definitely look for one
> with fuel injection, as this generation was when they made
> the changeover, so a lot of them still have carbs (not
> that there's anything wrong with the carbed versions per
> se, they work great, but they are pretty complex, with
> about five gazillion vacuum hoses). If you find one in
> good shape, it'll serve you well - there's one guy from
> Winnipeg on 3geez.com whose family has an '87 sedan with
> well over a million km on it.

 

I'm pretty much absolutely stuck on a Civic (or Civic CRX),
'cause of the smaller displacement engines and so better
fuel mileage. OTOH, if I see and can obtain a bargain price
on an 87-89 Accord, then I realize this might offset the
higher cost of fuel. I do like the look of Accords of that
era.

Thank you for the input.

"Matt Ion" <soundy106@gmail.com> wrote
> Personally, I'd say if you're not absolutely stuck on a
> Civic, take a look at a third-gen (86-89) Accord... I'm on
> my third now, and I love them. Definitely look for one
> with fuel injection, as this generation was when they made
> the changeover, so a lot of them still have carbs (not
> that there's anything wrong with the carbed versions per
> se, they work great, but they are pretty complex, with
> about five gazillion vacuum hoses). If you find one in
> good shape, it'll serve you well - there's one guy from
> Winnipeg on 3geez.com whose family has an '87 sedan with
> well over a million km on it.

 

"Elle" <honda.lioness@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote in
news:1jldh.7802$1s6.3047@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net:

> I'm pretty much absolutely stuck on a Civic (or Civic CRX),
> 'cause of the smaller displacement engines and so better
> fuel mileage.

It's not the small displacement engines that give the fuel economy,it's the
lighter -weight- of the whole auto,compared to a larger Accord.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

 

"Elle" <honda.lioness@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote in
news:1jldh.7802$1s6.3047@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net:

> I'm pretty much absolutely stuck on a Civic (or Civic CRX),
> 'cause of the smaller displacement engines and so better
> fuel mileage.

It's not the small displacement engines that give the fuel economy,it's the
lighter -weight- of the whole auto,compared to a larger Accord.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

 

"Elle" <honda.lioness@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote in
news:1jldh.7802$1s6.3047@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net:

> I'm pretty much absolutely stuck on a Civic (or Civic CRX),
> 'cause of the smaller displacement engines and so better
> fuel mileage.

It's not the small displacement engines that give the fuel economy,it's the
lighter -weight- of the whole auto,compared to a larger Accord.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

 

"Elle" <honda.lioness@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote in
news:1jldh.7802$1s6.3047@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net:

> I'm pretty much absolutely stuck on a Civic (or Civic CRX),
> 'cause of the smaller displacement engines and so better
> fuel mileage.

It's not the small displacement engines that give the fuel economy,it's the
lighter -weight- of the whole auto,compared to a larger Accord.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

 

"Jim Yanik" <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote
> "Elle" <honda.lioness@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote
>> I'm pretty much absolutely stuck on a Civic (or Civic
>> CRX),
>> 'cause of the smaller displacement engines and so better
>> fuel mileage.
>
> It's not the small displacement engines that give the fuel
> economy,it's the
> lighter -weight- of the whole auto,compared to a larger
> Accord.

c. 1990:
displacement: 1.5 liter Civic vs. 2 liter (minimum) Accord
weight: 2262 lb. Civic vs. 2733 lb. Accord

No doubt both weight and engine displacement are factors,
AFAIC. The Civic sacrifices acceleration for fuel economy.
Vice versa for the Accord. And so forth.

 

"Jim Yanik" <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote
> "Elle" <honda.lioness@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote
>> I'm pretty much absolutely stuck on a Civic (or Civic
>> CRX),
>> 'cause of the smaller displacement engines and so better
>> fuel mileage.
>
> It's not the small displacement engines that give the fuel
> economy,it's the
> lighter -weight- of the whole auto,compared to a larger
> Accord.

c. 1990:
displacement: 1.5 liter Civic vs. 2 liter (minimum) Accord
weight: 2262 lb. Civic vs. 2733 lb. Accord

No doubt both weight and engine displacement are factors,
AFAIC. The Civic sacrifices acceleration for fuel economy.
Vice versa for the Accord. And so forth.

 

"Jim Yanik" <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote
> "Elle" <honda.lioness@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote
>> I'm pretty much absolutely stuck on a Civic (or Civic
>> CRX),
>> 'cause of the smaller displacement engines and so better
>> fuel mileage.
>
> It's not the small displacement engines that give the fuel
> economy,it's the
> lighter -weight- of the whole auto,compared to a larger
> Accord.

c. 1990:
displacement: 1.5 liter Civic vs. 2 liter (minimum) Accord
weight: 2262 lb. Civic vs. 2733 lb. Accord

No doubt both weight and engine displacement are factors,
AFAIC. The Civic sacrifices acceleration for fuel economy.
Vice versa for the Accord. And so forth.

 

"Jim Yanik" <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote
> "Elle" <honda.lioness@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote
>> I'm pretty much absolutely stuck on a Civic (or Civic
>> CRX),
>> 'cause of the smaller displacement engines and so better
>> fuel mileage.
>
> It's not the small displacement engines that give the fuel
> economy,it's the
> lighter -weight- of the whole auto,compared to a larger
> Accord.

c. 1990:
displacement: 1.5 liter Civic vs. 2 liter (minimum) Accord
weight: 2262 lb. Civic vs. 2733 lb. Accord

No doubt both weight and engine displacement are factors,
AFAIC. The Civic sacrifices acceleration for fuel economy.
Vice versa for the Accord. And so forth.